"It is important not to focus on the actions of any single individual. As residents of Lincoln we must continue to bring our community together to
declare that violence and hate are not the values of our city."

It is precisely this type of double speak that so turns peoples' stomachs...making it very difficult for people to come to a basic position of
willingness for acceptance...Most people are not even willing to consider a position of acceptance and the bottom line is most people will not
without a clear condemnation of wrong headed behavior. Statements like this one SUCK and indicate there is some sort of excuse for what she did. The
fact of the matter is what she did was totally inexcusable.

I'm really impressed that you changed your position to some extent and had the maturity and respectfulness to state so. Its a rare thing on the
internet to actually be able to convince somebody of anything, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness and ability to tinker with your own opinions in a
nuanced way.

Well, see, this is where you or I disagree. I don't think it matters whether he stole the watch because he wanted the watch or because he wanted to
make you feel bad about your race. The watch is stolen either way, that's the crime, and that's what should be punishable.

But one has deeper social consequences and, if un-checked, has the potential to destabilise the very foundations of society (in my humble opinion)

Many people attach this almost metaphysical importance to issues of identity - race, gender, sexual orientation. There is an assumption that
somebody's motives based on these things make the crime worse than the motives of somebody stealing (or raping, or killing) out of other motives like
simple greed. I simply don't think that's true. The governement shouldn't be in the business of legislating some crimes worse than others for these
reasons. I'm calling emperor's new clothes on this whole way of thinking.

I would argue that the one attaching the metaphysical importance to the issue of race, gender and sexuality is the one who does the hating. The other
is a victim who was minding their own business until some decided that they didn’t like them because of that race\gender\sexuality.

I understand what you are saying... murder is murder... and once you are dead you are dead... However, although this is true, it’s not as simplistic
as that. We are highly evolved social creatures. We have a heightened sense of identity and self worth. If we ignore this side of us, and only
consider the physical aspects of a crime, then we are ignoring one of the most fundamental parts of being Human.

Also, if the victims and authorities ignore this side of the crime... it will never be truly dealt with... understanding the motive behind a crime is
the key to rehabilitating offenders.

I don't mean to interrupt your conversation here, but I would like to address this statement from a U.S. stand point. I say this because It has been
so long since I have lived in England or the EU for that matter that I do not remember how the prison systems work.

understanding the motive
behind a crime is the key to rehabilitating offenders.

The problem with this is that there is very little rehabilitation left in the U.S. prison system today, especially when it comes to race and gender
identity.

Yes there are programs that teach a trade or the possibility of obtaining an education, but that is about as far as it goes towards the rehabilitation
of inmates. Almost all prisons in the U.S. are self segregating and in many, it is encouraged, behind the scenes. The problem is so bad and has been
left unchecked for so long it has become the norm to the point where, in 2008, California decided to see what would happen, as an experiment, by
purposely desegregating a single prison.

There are a few prisons here that self segregation was not allowed from the very beginning. An example of this is the Nebraska State Penitentiary. A
neighbor of mine has worked in 9 different prisons around the country, all of which were self segregating. They were so accustomed to the non written
rules of this type of situation that when they took a position at the NSP and moved here, were too afraid of the inmates, retired from their position
and began working for the City jail due to not being able to handle the concept of a non segregated prison.

Rehabilitation went out of the prison system about the time they began to privatize. Looking at this, we can begin to understand it was no longer
about the rehabilitation of the inmates so much as lining the pockets of the private companies running them. The concept of rehabilitation has given
way to punishment and thus being considered a deterrent. This has failed as well as, although they are incarcerated and must follow a schedule of lock
down(confined to cells), eating, and yard(being able to mingle in common areas) the inmate rights are almost as free as outside the walls not to
mention, most of prison education is how to commit crime provided by other inmates.

The excuse given by the privatized prisons as to why rehabilitation is on the back burner is that there are not enough psychologists in order to
address every inmates issues. Personally, I feel it is the lack of process that is the main contributor and the mentality of "If we fix their thoughts
they wont repeat and thus less income" which explains part of the serious issue of prison overcrowding throughout the country.

I had no idea that the American prison system was that bad... I have seen a couple of documentary’s on US Prisons but always took them with a pinch
of salt (can't always trust what you see on TV)

I think that the entire subject is worthy of a thread of its own... I also think that you seem to be the best person to start it. Let me know if you
are interested, if not i may put something together of my own and, with your permission, use some of the information you have provided.

This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even
more people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For
myself, I can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.

So this woman decided she'd further her cause by faking a "hate" crime. But in actuality she's furthering hate of the very people she wants to
accuse of her plight. So she must be charged with a hate crime, her entire goal was to get people to hate those people who supposedly hate her. Her
motivation was discord, not healing, but anger, pain, manipulation, control and so on. The people who believed her story were inspired to hate, so
this must be a hate crime, as her entire motivation was hate based.

But should she be blamed? There are two tried and true ways to accomplish things on earth; killing or rising to supreme victim. She chose the latter
to further some bizarre agenda which is no different then many others who act like 7 year old's running to mommy with the, "he called me a name,"
battle cry to get their way. A nation ruled by hurt feelings is possibly the low in human history.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even more
people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For myself, I
can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.

My point exactly.

Now, the law recognizes "mitigating circumstances" in terms of motivation. Like if a man breaks into a drugstore to steal a drug that he can't afford
in order to save his dying daughter's life, the judge is allowed to go easier on him than a case in which a junkie breaks into the same drugstore to
get his fix. But extending this to matters of "identity" (race, sexual preference, etc.) and political motivation is a very tricky thing and, in my
opinion, this is beyond the scope of the law. It takes us into Orwell-land.

Fact is, its not illegal to hate somebody because they are gay or a different race or whatever. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's covered
by freedom of speech and thought. So using this as a criteria to make a punishment more severe than a case in which the same crime is committed
without the "hate thoughts" is fundamentally illogical and unfair. Then there is the issue of what and who are covered by this "hate law" stuff. Race
is covered. Being a homosexual is covered. But are these the same thing? And where do you draw the line? What about attacking somebody based on their
political views being different from you? Who decides this stuff, and based on what? We are entering very mushy territory here, letting feeling and
emotion take over from reason.

We can't crawl into people's skulls and determine their motivations with absolute certainty, and the courts and the law shouldn't be trying to do this
and weighing certain thoughts and ideologies as more worthy of punishment than others. Crimes should be punished on the basis of acts, not
thoughts.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even
more people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For
myself, I can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.

My point exactly.

Now, the law recognizes "mitigating circumstances" in terms of motivation. Like if a man breaks into a drugstore to steal a drug that he can't
afford in order to save his dying daughter's life, the judge is allowed to go easier on him than a case in which a junkie breaks into the same
drugstore to get his fix. But extending this to matters of "identity" (race, sexual preference, etc.) and political motivation is a very tricky
thing and, in my opinion, this is beyond the scope of the law. It takes us into Orwell-land.

Fact is, its not illegal to hate somebody because they are gay or a different race or whatever. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's covered
by freedom of speech and thought. So using this as a criteria to make a punishment more severe than a case in which the same crime is committed
without the "hate thoughts" is fundamentally illogical and unfair. Then there is the issue of what and who are covered by this "hate law" stuff.
Race is covered. Being a homosexual is covered. But are these the same thing? And where do you draw the line? What about attacking somebody based on
their political views being different from you? Who decides this stuff, and based on what? We are entering very mushy territory here, letting feeling
and emotion take over from reason.

We can't crawl into people's skulls and determine their motivations with absolute certainty, and the courts and the law shouldn't be trying to do
this and weighing certain thoughts and ideologies as more worthy of punishment than others. Crimes should be punished on the basis of acts, not
thoughts.

edit on 8/23/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)

There is a more fundamental problem with the execution of the hate law concept. What happens in the US is you are arrested and THEN the DA figures out
what he can charge you with, not the other way around. So in essence, motivation becomes an issue only if it helps convict = get money, and not is a
real part of the crime. As you pointed out, the drugstore robber gets the hate crime tag if he's got a facebook post that suggests he "hates" white
folks and, low and behold, the drugstore owner is white, so they DA says," 2+2= 1347!" I know a few DA's and the issue isn't what the crime is, or
who as truly hurt by the action, but what you can charge them with and make stick - get the most income from via fees, fines or prison. Hate crime
tagging will make almost anything stick, not matter how disconnected from the crime itself.

We have always lived an orwellian life, we just didn't know it, but at this point the robots have reached the point where headlines can only be had
by the most egregious notions and attaching laws to them. This woman sought to grab headlines not because she's actually a victim of anything but
self hatred (btw, is that a crime?) but because she's learned that the more egregious the action, the more attention - she's a very good study. It
is inevitable now that everyone winds up in jail as there is no one pure enough of thought to pass the judgment created by the millions of laws we
have already when the ingredient of hate crime is added.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.